I do see what you're saying Erin. You do see people throwing raw meat at their dogs and saying "oh well, its raw so its got to be better." But in the same respect, these people aren't the ones doing the research. They're the ones who are jumping on the bandwagon because its RAW. If you're going to take the time to feed raw, do it right or don't do it at all. Some dogs it just doesn't agree with and that's fine. You've got to be able to read your dog and understand their needs, and that's also important.

I've got to agree with what Demo is saying. Look at Layla. She is 100 times healthier now that she's on raw, she's lost nearly 15 pounds and looks fabulous. And no, I'm not agreeing with him because I know him. I'll argue with him till I'm blue in the face, ask Michelle. Both of them will tell you that Layla is a lot healthier now, its not just me sitting here saying it. Yes, she is checked for worms. Yes, I take precautions making sure I dont buy bad or rancid meat. Yes, the meat is frozen until she eats it. Yes, she's given supplments and organ meat to make sure she's getting the proper nutrition.

I'm sorry your teachers are telling you otherwise, but RAW is healthy if its fed properly. If its not fed properly, then no, its not healthy. But if you dont eat a properly balanced diet, thats not healthy either. Same thing. Did I care about my dog when she was fed kibble? Of course I did. Do I care about her more now just because she's not raw? No, not necessarily, but I certainly do feel that I care more about her nutritional and dietary needs. That's not saying that I loved her less as a dog, but I will admit that I wasn't doing all I could when she was on kibble. I just didn't know better. Now I do. I do feel that I'm taking better care of her now and feel as though she's getting better care and proper nutrition. You can tell JUST BY LOOKING AT HER. That's not even going into how she acts, how she performs at training and her general well being. That's simply by looking at her build, her coat and eyes/mouth.

So yes, I do agree with Demo. I do think the "average" raw feeder cares more about nutrition than the average kibble feeder. And I've been both. That's why I agree. I do care more now than I did before, so I'm speaking from personal experience. I've made the switch and I DO CARE MORE NOW. This is not a blanket statement about others, I'm saying this about myself as well.

Here two dogs get raw, one dogs gets kibble and two cats get kibble. No one has worms.

Here is a better question for you: How are different types of worms passed from animal to animal and by what mechanism are they able to get through the stomach? What are the most common worms, where do they live in the animal, how do they affect the animal, how are they passed, what defensees do they have against the dog and what defenses does the dog have against them?

As I understand it, whip worms (for example) are passed dog to dog through feces, but are not present in muscle meat. They attach themselves to the intestinal wall and take nutrients. They are very hard to find because they don't "shed" as much as other worms and they are hard to get rid of because they can live for extended periods outside of the host animal so they contanimate soil and are able to be passed even after a somewhat mild winter has passed. Correct?

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

Oh, stop it, you guys... I find all this very informative and you did raise a good question. Raw feeders are not superior to kibble feeders, IMO. We just choose a different diet for our dogs, w/all that entails. Like I stated before - I am just as caring and vigilant about their health as I was when I fed them kibble.I prefer RAW for my dogs, but I don't look down on kibble people. I would like to think that mostpet owners have their pets' best interest at heart and act accordingly... had RAW not worked for my dogs, I would've switched back and not felt bad or inferior about it.I personally don't think that RAW dogs are more prone to worms due to diet alone - as with everything in life... one must use a common-sense approach, know the pro's and con's, and assume the risks that come w/certain decisions.

See, my problem is...everyone says, raw is great if you do it right. One of the problems is that there are so many diets involving raw meat (at least when I was feeding there was). Everyone would tell you to use a different method to feed...there was Volhard, there was BARF, those are just the ones off the top of my head. I fed raw...oh, at least 5 years ago, and haven't been too involved since then. There were people that were adamant about grinding up bones, and people that were adamant about NOT grinding up bones, but letting the dogs crunch them themselves. I was not feeding weight bearing bones because they were too hard for the dogs to crunch successfully, but I see people doing it all of the time now.

There is so much information out there, that it's hard to say whether you're feeding Raw "well". I thought I was, and I had a dog get sick...no idea he was sick either, until his bloodwork came back. So for me, worms are not the problem...the problem is whether they're getting enough of the right nutrients.

I think Raw is fine, don't get me wrong...but when I started there was a HUGE push to feed raw...and so I did. I've since gone back to kibble...and I can't really say that there was much of a change in my dogs. I had a basset hound that I fed raw. Everyone told me that she would look so much better on raw, and feel better. Eh. She had the same coat on both, her ears were always clean (unlike most bassets) on both, and her teeth were maybe a bit better on raw. My guys still get raw marrow/knuckle bones to chew on for teeth.

I'm not trying to start more arguments...it just seemed like it was all raw feeders jumping in here.

"I don't have any idea if my dogs respect me or not, but they're greedy and I have their stuff." -- Patty Ruzzo

"Dogs don't want to control people. They want to control their own lives." --John Bradshaw

Michelle, I don't know if my data will be appropruiate since my parasitology teacher got it all wrong, but here goes... I'm digging out my parasito notebook just for you, I'm on vaca dammit!

You have 4 types of host, some there and some absent depending on the worm. The definitive host is the one who will harbor the adult, sexually mature, reproducing life stage of the worm. The intermediate will harbor the larval stage, and there is development going on. The paratenic host just carries the larval stage until it comes out, no development.The reservoir host will be the host who naturally carries the parasite in the environment, basically the source of infection.

They can have direct or indirect cycles, direct being say from one dog shedding eggs in it's feces to another dog who eats the feces, pretty straightforward.

The indirect cycle can have many steps, ex. raccoon sheds trematode (paragonimus) eggs in water, the eggs develop into a ciliated larval stage, has to come across the right kind of snail, then goes through 3 stages of asexual reproduction, the snail is eaten by a frog or something else, then eaten by whatever who then is in turn eaten by the raccoon.

Worms may be widely host specific (canids, humans, etc), appear in only some close related species, or be completely organ specific (lungs, intestine, colon).

If you take whipworms, their eggs can live up outside in any weather for years, and once your animal is infected it can be really hard to get rid of because of that.

Here's an interesting article on how a human can get worms from undercooked meat, it explains all about the migration from GI tract to muscle, with some neat pics at the end. I know they don't mention dogs, but it's interesting to see how it works.http://www.med-chem.com/Para/prob%20of% ... cember.htm

From encyclopedia britannica:(species Trichinella spiralis), parasitic worm of the class Nematoda (phylum Aschelminthes) that causes trichinosis, a serious disease in humans and other mammals—e.g., pigs, cats, dogs, bears, foxes, and rats. The worm, which occurs all over the world, ranges in length from 1.5 to 4 mm (0.06 to 0.2 inch).Mating takes place in the host’s small intestine, after which the fertilized female trichinae burrow into the intestinal wall and release the larvae. The larvae, in turn, are transported by the bloodstream to all parts of the body. The worm grows within muscle tissue, requiring approximately 16 days to mature. A cyst develops around the larva’s body. Further development occurs if the muscle tissue containing the encysted larva is eaten by an appropriate host; the worm matures and reproduces in the host’s intestine.

That's just one worm and I think pork meat isn't so popular amongst raw feeders...

LaylaWoobie wrote:Did I care about my dog when she was fed kibble? Of course I did. Do I care about her more now just because she's not raw? No, not necessarily, but I certainly do feel that I care more about her nutritional and dietary needs. That's not saying that I loved her less as a dog, but I will admit that I wasn't doing all I could when she was on kibble. I just didn't know better. Now I do. I do feel that I'm taking better care of her now and feel as though she's getting better care and proper nutrition. You can tell JUST BY LOOKING AT HER. That's not even going into how she acts, how she performs at training and her general well being. That's simply by looking at her build, her coat and eyes/mouth.

And the bolded part above is the problem I have with the whole raw vs kibble debate. You may be talking about yourself in that statement, Kendell, but it does seem to be the general prevailing attitude from some of the raw feeders directed towards kibble feeders.

Anyone can tell by looking at my dogs that they are in fantastic shape, even with their various medical issues -- energy is through the roof, their coats are beautiful (even Mac's with all his allergies), and they aren't overweight no matter what Michelle says ( ). AND THEY ARE FED KIBBLE.

Don't try and tell me that "I'm not doing all I can for [them]" because if I was then I'd be feeding raw. Don't try and tell me that "I just don't know better" because if I did then I'd be feeding raw. I am a highly educated person and have done my research on all types of canine diets. There are MANY reasons I choose not to feed raw and among them are:

1. It's extremely cost prohibitive for FIVE dogs (and the occasional foster) in the area where I live -- Fairfield County, CT. Yes, I have looked in to local small groceries and it's still cost prohibitive.

2. Mac has EXTREME resource guarding issues and he's good while on kibble. He's not good when getting other types of food.

3. Everyone's health and allergies are stable on the high-quality kibble I feed and there's no reason to mess with that.

I could go on, but I won't. Kibble works fine for us in this house and I've yet to see definitive proof that raw would work any better for them.

And yes, I do know that I sound defensive and it's for good reason -- I'm tired of hearing some of the raw feeders on this board bashing on kibble, and it's not only in this thread. It's in any thread that this debate comes up. It's also the reason that I generally stay out of these debates.

Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.

No, I did mean me specifically. I knew very little about canine nutrition before I came here and Layla was on mid-grade kibble. I know you're a very educated person when it come to these things, otherwise I would have never come to you with problems about Layla. I highly value your opinion and certainly respect you and what you have to say. Don't get me wrong.

I was speaking for myself when I said that I feel that I have more knowledge now and that I feel that she's getting better nutrition now because she's on raw. I don't doubt for a second that your dogs are happy, healthy and well-taken care of. I would think absolutely no less.

LaylaWoobie wrote:Did I care about my dog when she was fed kibble? Of course I did. Do I care about her more now just because she's not raw? No, not necessarily, but I certainly do feel that I care more about her nutritional and dietary needs. That's not saying that I loved her less as a dog, but I will admit that I wasn't doing all I could when she was on kibble. I just didn't know better. Now I do. I do feel that I'm taking better care of her now and feel as though she's getting better care and proper nutrition. You can tell JUST BY LOOKING AT HER. That's not even going into how she acts, how she performs at training and her general well being. That's simply by looking at her build, her coat and eyes/mouth.

And the bolded part above is the problem I have with the whole raw vs kibble debate. You may be talking about yourself in that statement, Kendell, but it does seem to be the general prevailing attitude from some of the raw feeders directed towards kibble feeders.

Anyone can tell by looking at my dogs that they are in fantastic shape, even with their various medical issues -- energy is through the roof, their coats are beautiful (even Mac's with all his allergies), and they aren't overweight no matter what Michelle says ( ). AND THEY ARE FED KIBBLE.

Don't try and tell me that "I'm not doing all I can for [them]" because if I was then I'd be feeding raw. Don't try and tell me that "I just don't know better" because if I did then I'd be feeding raw. I am a highly educated person and have done my research on all types of canine diets. There are MANY reasons I choose not to feed raw and among them are:

1. It's extremely cost prohibitive for FIVE dogs (and the occasional foster) in the area where I live -- Fairfield County, CT. Yes, I have looked in to local small groceries and it's still cost prohibitive.

2. Mac has EXTREME resource guarding issues and he's good while on kibble. He's not good when getting other types of food.

3. Everyone's health and allergies are stable on the high-quality kibble I feed and there's no reason to mess with that.

I could go on, but I won't. Kibble works fine for us in this house and I've yet to see definitive proof that raw would work any better for them.

And yes, I do know that I sound defensive and it's for good reason -- I'm tired of hearing some of the raw feeders on this board bashing on kibble, and it's not only in this thread. It's in any thread that this debate comes up. It's also the reason that I generally stay out of these debates.

Good post!

"I don't have any idea if my dogs respect me or not, but they're greedy and I have their stuff." -- Patty Ruzzo

"Dogs don't want to control people. They want to control their own lives." --John Bradshaw

I decided to try RAW after reading many, many posts about kibble on this board. It was either that, or switching to something much, much better than what I was feeding in terms of commercial food.When Mick became sick his diet was one of the first things the Oncologist asked about, and she was very happy to hear that he was on RAW already. It's her preferred diet for dogs w/cancer.I think our common goal is to have a healthy, well-cared-for dog... I've always assumed that RAW AND kibble feeders strive to do what's best for each individual animal, and it never occurred to me to question anyones devotion to their dog, based on diet.

The problem lies with the "unintentional" kibble bashing...raw feeders tend to group together, and talk about how wonderful their dogs are on raw. Kibble feeders don't group up as much, merely because there are so many types of kibble.

"I don't have any idea if my dogs respect me or not, but they're greedy and I have their stuff." -- Patty Ruzzo

"Dogs don't want to control people. They want to control their own lives." --John Bradshaw

I miss feeding RAW and would love to do it again, but I just can't afford it right now. Inara's on a great kibble, and honestly, looking at her, you'd never guess that she wasn't on raw. She's got a gorgeous coat, bright eyes, clean teeth, fabulous breath, etc. And her poops are small, firm, seldom, and not too stinky!

But ultimately (maybe when I get up to NY?) she will be on RAW again. Oh yes, it will be done...

But, on the other hand, I will defend Merrick kibble vehemently. It's great stuff.

"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

3. Everyone's health and allergies are stable on the high-quality kibble I feed and there's no reason to mess with that.

Amen to that...I have 6 dogs here and I have found and stuck to a dry food that everyone will eat..that everyone maintains a good weight on...that everyones coat,eyesand poop is good on..and that I can easily afford...I am sticking with what works

OK guys, I'm DONE packing... No time to post more about parasites since I'm trying to leave the apartment (in 3 hours OMG!) not in a complete post-tornado state... And spend actual time with my pup and man since I'll be away from them for 2 weeks. And from PBT. So probably done posting for 2 weeks!

Just to clarify, for Michelle and anyone else, that I for one also do NOT look down on kibble feeders!! Had my dogs done well on kibble they would still be eating kibble. Had my dog done well on Science Diet Original, gol durnitt he would still be eating it! I only switched to raw because I had a dog with a specific problem and this was the only thing that fixed that problem.

I am not trying to convert anyone to raw who doesn't want to be converted, but I do like to make sure that anything presented as a "fact" is presented truly and accurately, as I want people to have the whole and correct picture of what raw feeding really is.